Impact of pharmacist-led medication review among hemodialysis patients: a systematic review.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2446912
Ganesh Sritheran Paneerselvam, Chen Kah Yee, Muhammad Junaid Farrukh, Ana Yuda, Andi Hermansyah, Mohd Fadli Mohd Asmani, Ibrahim Abdullah, Long Chiau Ming
{"title":"Impact of pharmacist-led medication review among hemodialysis patients: a systematic review.","authors":"Ganesh Sritheran Paneerselvam, Chen Kah Yee, Muhammad Junaid Farrukh, Ana Yuda, Andi Hermansyah, Mohd Fadli Mohd Asmani, Ibrahim Abdullah, Long Chiau Ming","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2446912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication-related problems (DRPs) are common among hemodialysis (HD) patients, and pharmacist-led medication reviews have been shown to address such issues. However, the impact of these interventions and the specific types of DRPs among this patient group remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews among HD patients, identify the most prevalent types of DRPs, and explore the factors associated with these problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across databases such as <i>Medline via PubMed</i>, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and EBSCOHost, for studies published from January 2012 to July 2023. Studies included were those focusing on pharmacist interventions in HD patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of selected studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 343 articles, 10 studies (involving 1342 HD patients) were included. Nine studies were rated as high quality, and one as fair quality. The studies predominantly used prospective designs. A total of 4511 DRPs were identified, with suboptimal drug treatment, non-adherence to medications, and drug use without indication being the most common issues. Pharmacist interventions led to the resolution or reduction of DRPs, shorter hospital stays, improvement in laboratory outcomes, better quality of life (QoL), and enhanced patient understanding. However, interventions had minimal or no significant impact on reducing unplanned admissions, mortality rates, or improving medication adherence. The reduction in healthcare utilisation costs was inconsistent across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacist-led medication reviews were effective in resolving DRPs and improving clinical outcomes in HD patients, such as quality of life and lab values. However, their impact on healthcare utilisation and mortality remains inconclusive. Further research with longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term economic outcomes of these interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"2446912"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2446912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medication-related problems (DRPs) are common among hemodialysis (HD) patients, and pharmacist-led medication reviews have been shown to address such issues. However, the impact of these interventions and the specific types of DRPs among this patient group remain unclear.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews among HD patients, identify the most prevalent types of DRPs, and explore the factors associated with these problems.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across databases such as Medline via PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and EBSCOHost, for studies published from January 2012 to July 2023. Studies included were those focusing on pharmacist interventions in HD patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of selected studies.

Results: After screening 343 articles, 10 studies (involving 1342 HD patients) were included. Nine studies were rated as high quality, and one as fair quality. The studies predominantly used prospective designs. A total of 4511 DRPs were identified, with suboptimal drug treatment, non-adherence to medications, and drug use without indication being the most common issues. Pharmacist interventions led to the resolution or reduction of DRPs, shorter hospital stays, improvement in laboratory outcomes, better quality of life (QoL), and enhanced patient understanding. However, interventions had minimal or no significant impact on reducing unplanned admissions, mortality rates, or improving medication adherence. The reduction in healthcare utilisation costs was inconsistent across studies.

Conclusion: Pharmacist-led medication reviews were effective in resolving DRPs and improving clinical outcomes in HD patients, such as quality of life and lab values. However, their impact on healthcare utilisation and mortality remains inconclusive. Further research with longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term economic outcomes of these interventions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信